Goerz Doppel Anastigmat Serie III No 7 360mm f6 COVERAGE or lens catalogue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi0909

Maybe you can take a look at my pictures, to check if the lens looks like your one :)

---

image of my lens

Greg

It's not going to cover 20x24. 19" (48cm) Dagor is what you want for that.

Nobody says the 14" Series III Dagor will cover 20"x24" because it won't. The linked catalog page suggests 18"x22" stopped all the way down which is 90 degrees, which is in fact, the limit of these lenses (90 degrees at f/64 or f/90).
A 16.5" Dagor (420mm) also f/7.7 will just cover 20"x24" stopped down and will likely render darkened corners. As Karl French tells you, a 19" Dagor is a better bet for a good usable wide angle on 20"x24".
I share this as a 20"x24" user who owns and uses many focal length Dagors, including 14"(won't cover 20x24), 16.5" (86.9 deg)and 19"(78.8 deg)(both do, read above).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi0909

Thanks for the tip :)
But do you know if it is really usable on 20x24 inch? This would be so great, because then I would have a wide angle.

---

I downloaded and zoomed in on the photo showing your aperture scale. It appears to be marked in "the Goerz System" rather than International stops(the F/stop scale we all know today).
You can consider your marked apertures to be:
6 = f/7.7 or f/8
12 = f/11
24 = f/16
48 = f/22
96 = f/32
192 = f/45
Being that it has a 5 digit serial number, and marked in "Goerz System" it's on the early side. I have a black painted one that looks very similar, but with 6 digit ser, and marked in "International Stops". It should perform very well, even compared to a much more modern lens, though being uncoated it'll be a little less contrasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi0909

Attachment 207776
Attachment 207777
Attachment 207778

This is my lens

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy Storer

Nobody says the 14" Series III Dagor will cover 20"x24" because it won't. The linked catalog page suggests 18"x22" stopped all the way down which is 90 degrees, which is in fact, the limit of these lenses (90 degrees at f/64 or f/90).
A 16.5" Dagor (420mm) also f/7.7 will just cover 20"x24" stopped down and will likely render darkened corners. As Karl French tells you, a 19" Dagor is a better bet for a good usable wide angle on 20"x24".
I share this as a 20"x24" user who owns and uses many focal length Dagors, including 14"(won't cover 20x24), 16.5" (86.9 deg)and 19"(78.8 deg)(both do, read above).

---

Thanks for your great answer :)
Do you mean I could use the 19 inch on a 16x20 camera even wide open in landscape? or just portrait?

On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy Storer

I downloaded and zoomed in on the photo showing your aperture scale. It appears to be marked in "the Goerz System" rather than International stops(the F/stop scale we all know today).
You can consider your marked apertures to be:
6 = f/7.7 or f/8
12 = f/11
24 = f/16
48 = f/22
96 = f/32
192 = f/45
Being that it has a 5 digit serial number, and marked in "Goerz System" it's on the early side. I have a black painted one that looks very similar, but with 6 digit ser, and marked in "International Stops". It should perform very well, even compared to a much more modern lens, though being uncoated it'll be a little less contrasty.

---

Thank you, that clears everything up :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi0909

On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

---

See post #4 above.

Lessee now, if you want a 90 degree lens that just covers 20x24 you'll need something around 400 mm. Your only chance is an ancient lens. Scarce, expensive. If you must shoot wide, consider moving down in format.

Take a good look at the old catalog page Dan Fromm shared a link to. It gives coverage wide open, at moderate stops, and all the way down. It's an early catalog, before some of the shorter Fls were opened up to f/6.8, but the data tracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxi0909

Thanks for your great answer :)
Do you mean I could use the 19 inch on a 16x20 camera even wide open in landscape? or just portrait?

On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy Storer

Take a good look at the old catalog page Dan Fromm shared a link to. It gives coverage wide open, at moderate stops, and all the way down. It's an early catalog, before some of the shorter Fls were opened up to f/6.8, but the data tracks.

---

Sometimes people say that those Catalogues doesn´t tell the real world Coverage. They say that the lenses can go higher in coverage. That´s why I asked.

I opened a new Thread with a question about an other lens I owned, because the seller said it can go higher than the catalogue numbers. It´s a Voigtländer Euryscop No. 6 Series IV. He said I could use it for 16x20 inch portraits fully opened aperture.

Coverage increases with magnification. Portraits are shot at higher magnifications than shots of distant landscapes.

That said, there are two coverage concepts. Some say coverage when they mean illumination, i.e., does the lens put enough light in the format's corners. Others say coverage when they mean useful image quality, i.e., does the lens put sharp enough image in the corners.

You have to ask yourself whether your proposed application -- portraits -- needs good image quality in the corners.

You also have to remember that sometimes sellers (choose one) don't know what they're talking about or lie.

The VM says:

In the USA list in 1915-1916 Series IVa was listed for 50° as:
No2 10in focus 1.75in dia 5x7in covered
No3 11.5in 2.33in 6.5x8.5in
No4 14in 2.5in 8x10in
No5 17in 3.125in 11x14in
No6 20in 3.5in 14x17in

So a 17 inch Euryscop Ser. V. will cover around 16". This is considerably shorter than 16x20's diagonal.